SUNDER LAL Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhidated 23/09/1986 whereby the evidencof the petitioner herein wasclosed.

(2.) The petitioner had taken the first floor of property no. 5694-5, GaliNo. 3, New Chandrawal,SabjiMandi, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 100.00.The respondent filed an eviction petition under Sec. 14(1)(e)read with Sec.25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking the eviction of the petitioner fromthe said premises on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The petitioner's application for leave to defend was granted and accordingly the petitioner was to lead evidence in support of the contention that the respondent didnot require the premises in question for his bona fide personal need. Duringthe pendency of the eviction petition, the respondent moved an applicationunder Sec .15(2) of ehe Delhi Rent Control Act which was granted and sincethe petitioner defaulted in complying with that order, the Additional RentController struck off the defence of the petitioner. An appeal was filed by thepetitioner against that order before the Rent Control Tribunal which was alsodismissed on 6/07/1985. The petitioner filed a second appeal in this Courtwhich was allowed on 18/02/1986 and the order of the Additional RentController striking out the defence was set aside and the case was remandedback to the Additional Rent Controller to decide the same according to law.After the remand, the petitioner was to produce his evidence. He, therefore,made an application for summoning the witnesses from E.S.I, office, Rationingoffice and House-tax Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Thepetitioner accordingly deposited the diet money and process fee. However, thewitnesses did not appear on the date fixed by the Additional Rent Controller.The Additional Rent Controller, therefore, issued D.O. letters to these witnesseson 12-8-86 asking them to appear before the Court on 23/09/1986.The petitioner also moved another application on 11/08/1986 for summoning these witnesses and again deposited diet money and process fee. TheAdditional Rent Controller summoned these witnesses for 23/09/1986.Since none of these witnesses appeared on 23/09/1986, the impugnedorder came to be passed.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that theAdditional Rent Controller had not considered the circumstances why theseofficial witnesses could not appear on the given date and without consideringthe relevant facts in this regard, the evidence of the petitioner was closed.Learned counsel submitted that inadvertently on the summons as well as on theapplication the date was wrongly mentioned as 21/09/1986 instead of 23/09/1986 and that is why the witnesses did not appear on 2 3/09/1986. Learned counsel submitted that all the three witnesses areofficial witnesses and the petitioner having deposited the diet money and processfee, he could not be held responsible for non-appearance of these witnesses.Learned counsel prayed that one final opportunity be given to the petitionerto summon these three witnesses and the petitioner will serve these witnessesDasti for any date to be fixed by the Additional Rent Controller.